FDLRS Managers Mtg. PPT 4.09

Document Sample
FDLRS Managers Mtg. PPT 4.09 Powered By Docstoc
					Terry the Tulip wants to remind you to
 stop by the corner coffee shop and
  grab a cup before we get rolling!

       FDLRS Spring
     Managers’ Meeting

         Welcome Managers 

                  April 28 ~ 29, 2009
                    Orlando, FL
        Planting the Seeds for a
         Successful 2009-2010

 FDLRS Managers know how to select the
seeds, plant in fertile soil, nurture the roots,
         and harvest the rewards!
So let’s take a look at our “FDLRS Garden”
            for the next two days.

        Garden Topics by Day
Day One                   Day Two
 BEESS and Function       RFA
  Updates                  Center Operating Procedures
 Center Data              Targeted Discussions
 SPP Indicators            – Stimulus Dollars
 Grants Management         – Personnel Development
  Update                      Alliances
 Project Tracking          – Follow Up Practices
  System                    – Distance Learning
 Regional PD Alliances     – Budget Management
  and PDP Projects          – Coordinating Councils
 PTS Entries               – Personnel Development
 2009-2010 Project         – Fiscal Management
  Priorities                – PR
                            – Resources
Let’s get started with our
     BEESS Update
  with Bambi Lockman
  and Cathy Bishop
 And now for our
Function Updates
           Child Find Update
Conference call 3/25/09.
Easels will be translated in Spanish, Creole,
 and Vietnamese.
Centers will place orders for easels and
 tear off pads.
Sharing of ideas to reach pediatricians,
 private schools, homeless, and the use of
 radio/TV and other media.
Conference calls will be held twice a year.
               Indicator 12
             C to B Transition
 Districts completed verification activity for
  2007-08 data.
 State compliance went from 68.5% to 90.2%.
 Compliance of 100%--30 districts.
 Compliance of 99%-76%--26 districts.
 Compliance of 75% and lower—6 districts.
 Systemic noncompliance = 75% or lower.
 Districts with systemic noncompliance must
  review policies, procedures, and practices and
  implement any needed changes.
 Five districts did not have any children
  transition during 2007-08.
      Parent Services Update
 ESE Parent Survey deadline 06/13/09.
 Parent Services Communication workgroup –
  created Wikispace.
 Parent Services Training workgroup – meeting
  to discuss parameters for posting training on
  Wikispace & priorities trainings to post.
 Plan to open Wikispace to Parent Services
  Liaisons after Training Workgroup complete
 Workgroup created to update “Introduction to
  ESE” book.
      Parent Services Update
 Important Dates
  – June 5-7, 2009 – Family Café Conference -will
    be looking for volunteers to assist with FDLRS
    exhibit table.
  – October 1-15, 2009 – Disability History and
    Awareness Weeks.
  – October – National Disability Employment
    Awareness Month.
  – November – Family Involvement Month.
                      HRD Update
•Level II Differentiated Instruction: Assessment and Grading Train the
Trainer co-conducted with FDLRS and FIN for 59 professional
developers. Development of a 10 hour online DI PDA-ESE Course is
underway and should be available in the fall.
•SIM Statewide Efforts have included: Days 4 and 5 of PPDI, January
Update for 100+, 2 SIM Advisory Meetings, Days 1 – 5 of PPDI
scheduled for June ’09, Regional SIM PD offerings ongoing.
•HRD Fall Meeting and Spring Forum in conjunction with FASD events.
•HRD Workgroups: Differentiated Instruction, Behavior Management,
ESE Policies/Procedure, Reading, Technology Integration, Low
Incidence, SIM.
•HRD Communications via Wikispaces and website.
                  HRD Update
          Distance Learning: PDA-ESE
 Statewide offering of PDA-ESE Language Development and
  Communication Module for SLPs to receive CEUs. Incorporated Adobe
  Connect sessions for face-to-face meetings.

 PDA-ESE 5 ½ Year Implementation Data (October 2003 – March 2009)
   – PDA-ESE Total Number of Modules Offered Statewide – 620
   – Total Number of Completing Participants – 4147
         Participant by Module Breakdown ~
         Foundations - 737
         Assessment and Evaluation - 358
         Instructional Practices - 532
         Positive Behavior Support - 779
         Language Development and Communication - 312
         Interpersonal Interactions and Participation - 151
         Transition - 473
         Differentiating Reading Instruction – 805

                                                               Data from 3/31/09
              HRD Update
      Distance Learning: ELEM. K-6
                and MGIC
 Elem. K-6 A cumulative total of 5,153 educators
  have accessed this online resource since it
  became available at the end of January in 2007.
  (3rd quarter – 557 registrants)

 MGIC - A cumulative total of 7,849 educators have
  accessed this online resource since it became
  available at the end of May in 2005.
  (3rd quarter – 818 registrants)
                                         Data from 3/31/09
          Technology Update

FDLRS Technology Network Goal
 To coordinate services at the state, regional,
  and local level; a well as with other BEESS
  Technology projects, to achieve a seamless
  service delivery system.
  – Example : Regional coordination of Institute
    2008 follow-up.
              Technology Update
            Institute 08 Resources
   Read:Outloud Software
   Kurzweil Software
   Classroom Suite Software
   Mino Camera
   Boardmaker Curriculum Support Resources
   Science Curriculum Support Tools
   Singapore Math Resources
   Virtual World Resources
   Digital Text Materials
   Low Incidence Literacy Materials & Resources
   Project WILD Science Resources
           Technology Update
   Network Websites
   efdlrs Moodle
   Webinar Trainings
   Network Presentations
   Knowledge Management Systems
            Technology Update
   Wikis              20,145
   Second Life        17,802
   AT Comp               500
   Virtual Meetings      201
    – Connect
    – Elluminate
    – Talking Communities
 Tech Booklet         14,000
     Student Outcomes - 7052
 Increased test scores
     Student Outcomes - 7052
 Increased participation in the assessment
     Student Outcomes - 7052
 Increased active listening in the learning
     Student Outcomes - 7052
 Increased activity communication in the
  learning activity
     Student Outcomes - 7052
 Increased participation on cooperative
     Student Outcomes - 7052
 Increased on-task behavior
   Let’s take a look at a
little center data and an
    update on our SPP
Performance Plan

How did we do in 2007-2008?

(APR provided under Tab 6)
                  Indicator 1
 % of youth with IEPs graduating from high school
  with a regular diploma….

         Target            Performance 2007-08

         40.3%                     45.2%
      Comments - Indicator 1
 Data revealed an increase in the graduation
  rate of 5.3% from prior year.
 70.4 % (50/71) of districts were above the
 81.2% (26/32) of the districts targeted
 Re-structured improvement activities.
 Moving forward, targeting of districts based
  on performance across 1, 2, 13, and 14.
                  Indicator 2
 Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high

         Target             Performance 2007-08

          4.0%                       4.4%
      Comments – Indicator 2
 While we did not meet target, performance
  improved with decline from 5.39% in 2006-
  07 to 4.4% in 2007-08.
 58% (42/72) of districts met the target.
 80% (28/35) of districts targeted had
  decrease in dropout rate.
                        Indicator 3
   Participation and performance on statewide
     a) % of districts that meet state minimum “n” size meeting AYP for
        progress for disability subgroup.
     b) % participating in statewide assessment.
     c) Proficiency rate against grade level standards and alternate
        achievement standards.
            Target                       Performance 2007-08
a) 40% in reading/37% math           a) 7% (5/72) met target in
                                     reading; 8% (6/72) in math

b) 96%                               b) 96.1% participation rate

c) 38% proficient reading; 40% c) 31.6% proficient reading;
math                           35.3% math
       Comments - Indicator 3
 Met target in participation rate, but rate
  dropped slightly.
 Increasing proficiency rates
  – Reading up from 29.9%
  – Math up from 32.4%
 % of districts meeting AYP target
  – Increased for reading (4% to 7%)
  – Decreased for math (10% to 8%)
     Comments for Indicator 3
 Beginning this year, districts will be targeted
  based on criteria that integrate data
  elements for regular class placement and
  performance in reading and math on the
  state assessment.
 Modifying and streamlining activities
  between 3 and 5.
                  Indicator 4
 Percent of districts identified as having a
  significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions
  and expulsions of children with disabilities for
  greater than ten days in a school year.

         Target                  Performance

 7.5% or fewer districts           9% (6/67)
        Comments Indicator 4
 % of districts having significant discrepancy
  up from 6% (4/67) for 2006-07.
 Two of the four districts with significant
  discrepancy in 2006-07 did not have
  significant discrepancy in 2007-08.
 Key factors in improvement – correction of
  data; PBS initiated.
 Two districts targeted for three consecutive
                    Indicator 5
 Percent of students with IEPs aged 6 – 21
  a) Percent removed from regular class < 21% of the day.
  b) Percent removed from regular class >60% of the day.
  c) % served in separate schools, residential placements,
    homebound or hospital placements.
           Target              Performance 2007-08
a) 56.8%                     a) 62.1%
b) 22.3%                     b) 18.4%
c) 2.7%                      c) 3.3%
      Comments - Indicator 5
 Exceeded the state targets in two of the three
 Increase of 4.3% in % served in regular class
  placement over prior year.
 Decrease of 3.1% in % of students removed
  for more than 60% of the day over prior year.
 Increased by 1.5% in separate environments
  over prior year.
                   Indicator 7
 Percent of preschool children with IEPs who
  demonstrate improved:
  – Positive social-emotional skills
  – Acquisition and use of knowledge (including early
    language/communication and early literacy)
  – Use appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

          Target                Performance 2007-08

   No baseline yet - will               See table
     establish in next
                    619: Results for FY 07-08
                                              Positive social-     Acquisition and use   Use of appropriate
                                              emotional skills      of knowledge and     behaviors to meet
                                             (including social            skills            their needs
OSEP Categories                           Number of        % of    Number       % of     Number       % of
                                           children     children      of      children      of      children
                                                                   children              children
a. Percent of preschool children with
   IEPs who did not improve functioning                   1.7                   1.7                   1.7

b. Percent of preschool children with
   IEPs who improved functioning but
   not sufficient to move nearer to           46         11.4        89         22.1       58        14.4
   functioning comparable to same-aged
c. Percent of preschool children with
   IEPs who improved functioning to a
                                              33          8.2        77         19.1       38         9.4
   level nearer to same-aged peers but
   did not reach
d. Percent of preschool children with
   IEPs who improved functioning to
                                             129         32.0        107        26.6       89        22.1
   reach a level comparable to same-
   aged peers
e. Percent of preschool children with
   IEPs who maintained functioning at a      188         46.7        123        30.5       211       52.4
   level comparable to same-aged peers
   Total                                    N=403        100%       N=403      100%      N=403       100% 38
                  Indicator 8
 Percentage of parents with a child receiving
  special education services who report that schools
  facilitated parent involvement as a means of
  improving services and results for children with
         Target             Performance 2007-08

          32%                        35%
      Comments - Indicator 8
 Increase of 5% over 2006-07 performance.
 Response rate still discouraging – 9%
 For 2008-2009 will move to separate
  reporting for preschool and K-12.
 Established targets for two populations.
                  Indicator 9
 Percent of districts with disproportionate
  representation of racial and ethnic groups in
  special education and related services that is the
  result of inappropriate identification.

         Target              Performance 2007-08

           0%                          0%
                   Indicator 10
 Percent of districts with disproportionate
  representation of racial and ethnic groups in
  specific disability categories that is the result of
  inappropriate identification.

          Target                    Performance

            0%                      1.38% (1/72)
      Comments - Indicator 10
 All races and ethnicities examined for each
  disability in all districts.
 Sample records were requested from nine
  districts on newly identified students.
 Used record review protocol to determine if
  disproportionate representation a result of
  inappropriate identification.
                  Indicator 11
 Percent of children, with parental consent to
  evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days or
  state established timeline.

         Target            Performance 2007- 08

         100%                       94%
     Comments – Indicator 11
 Improved by 1% from 2006-07.
 # of districts that met 100% compliance
  increased from 16 to 18 districts.
 Three districts targeted in 2006-07 reported
  100% compliance.
 54 districts improved overall compliance.
                  Indicator 12
 Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age
  3, who were found eligible for Part B, and who
  have an IEP developed and implemented by their
  3rd birthdays.

         Target              Performance 2007-08

          100%                       90.2%
       Comments - Indicator 12
 Significant improvement over 2006-07 which
  was 68.5%!

 96%+ have their IEPs within 30 days of the 3rd

 First time that no districts had 0% compliance.
                  Indicator 13
 Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP
  that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP
  goals and transition services that will reasonably
  enable the student to meet the post-secondary
         Target             Performance 2007- 08

         100%                        24%
     Comments – Indicator 13
 Performance represents 92 of 389 transition
  IEPs reviewed from 72 LEAs.
 Decrease from 76% in 2006-07.
 Attribute the decrease to revised procedures
  that facilitated finding areas of weakness.
 Those procedures included Web based self-
  assessment implemented in all districts.
                  Indicator 14
 Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in
  secondary school and who have been
  competitively employed, enrolled in some type of
  postsecondary school or both, within one year of
  leaving high school.
         Target                 Performance

         55.7%                       55%
     Comments – Indicator 14
 Decrease by .7% from 2006-07.
 Decrease in employment outcomes likely
  due to the struggling economy.
  – In 2005 Florida had an annual job growth of
  – In 2007 job growth was 1.9%
 Long waiting list for adult services may also
  be a contributing factor.
                  Indicator 15
 General supervision system identified and corrects
  noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case
  later than one year from identification.

         Target                 Performance

         100%                       99.6%
      Comments – Indicator 15

 Substantial increase over last year’s rate of
 The single instance of uncorrected non-
  compliance related to evidence of systemic
  non-compliance for indicator 13 for one
                  Indicator 16
 Percent of signed written complaints with reports
  issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or
  timeline was extended for exceptional
  circumstances with respect to a particular
         Target                  Performance

          100%                       100%
                  Indicator 17
 Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing
  requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45-
  day timeline or timeline that is properly extended
  by the hearing officer.

         Target                   Performance

          100%                        100%
                  Indicator 18
 Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution
  sessions that were resolved through resolution
  session settlement agreements.

         Target                  Performance

         57.5%                        69%
                  Indicator 19
 Percent of mediations held that resulted in
  mediation agreements.

         Target                  Performance

        75%-85%                       73%
                  Indicator 20
 State reported data are timely and accurate.

         Target                 Performance

          100%                      100%
  Grants Management
Update with Sue Wilkinson
    and Kay Caster
   Review of BEESS
 Discretionary Projects
Request for Applications

     Please delete
 slides 60 through 75
Mid-way on
 Page 13
            Why Changes

 Standardize proposals
 Approval process expedited
   What are the changes in the

 Narrative format
 Format requirements
 Assurances
                 Changes in the
            Project Design Narrative
 The BEESS will identify:
  – A description of the project.
  – Initiatives – specific initiatives the project is
    expected to address:
      Expected outcomes/goals the project is expected to
      State Performance Plan indicators the project is
       expected to address.
 The Project narrative components will address
  the initiatives identified by BEESS.
        Changes in the Narrative

 Project abstract:
  – Brief description of the primary focus of the
  – No more than two paragraphs
 Initiatives:
  – Brief description of each identified project
          Changes in the Narrative
 Baseline data
  – Data against which project performance will be
  – Representative of the region/district, if applicable.
  – Types of data
      Quantitative
      (e.g., relevant SPP indicator data as reflected in the SPP/APR
      or LEA profiles, student performance outcome data, number of
      people trained, district graduation rates for students with
      disabilities, or formal survey results)
      Qualitative
      (e.g., informal needs assessment results, focus group results,
      or case studies)
      Data collection plans
         Changes in the Narrative

 Established need
  – State, regional or district need based on
    analysis of the baseline data.
          Changes in the Narrative
 Scope of work
  – Project activities
      What will the applicant do?
        – Identify details of activities including deliverables; training,
          technical assistance and dissemination; student performance
          and service delivery. Must include consideration of alternate
          training activities.
        – Address project-specific activities identified in the SPP
        – Demonstrate how districts, especially targeted districts, will
          receive support in accomplishing improvement activities. Assist
          with problem-solving and resource identification.
      When will the project conduct the activities?
             Changes in the Narrative
 Evaluation plan
  – Identify how the project will evaluate progress toward
    improving baseline data used as a foundation to identify
    need and project activities.
  – Types of data:
      Quantitative
      (e.g., relevant SPP indicator data as reflected in the SPP/APR
      or LEA profiles, student performance outcome data, number of
      people trained, district graduation rates for students with
      disabilities, or formal survey results).
      Qualitative
      (e.g., informal needs assessment results, focus group results,
      or case studies).
      Results of initial data collection.
     Additional Components
 Support for Reading/Strategic Imperatives:
  – Address the reading initiatives
  – Incorporate one or more of the Strategic

 Dissemination/Marketing:
  – Describe strategies that will be used to
    disseminate information and market the
    project to appropriate populations.
          Additional Components
 Reporting outcomes
  – Status updates
      Regular updates required at the discretion of the project
  – Quarterly reports
      Reports of progress submitted to the BEESS project contact.
      The fourth quarter - a cumulative report of the project’s
      Submit quarterly reports electronically using the format
       provided by BEESS.
      Reporting will be impacted by new BEESS discretionary
       project database.
      Additional Components
 For Federal Programs – General
  Education Provisions Act (GEPA)
  – Describe in narrative form how equitable
    access to and participation in its program for
    students, teachers, and other program
    beneficiaries with special needs will be
    provided. For details refer to URL:
          Format Requirements
 Submit one copy.
 Proposal format:
  – 8.5 x 11-inch plain sheets of paper; use 12 point font
  – Identify the district/agency in the upper right hand
  – Label narrative pages by subject area
  – Number the pages
 Do not include additional attachments.
 Include descriptions of all personnel funded through
  the project by:
   – Position
   – Amount of salary
   – Number of FTE (full time equivalent)
 Explain out of state travel:
   – Information in budget must be explicit
       Destination
       Purpose
       Number traveling
 Submission of fiscal information at periodic intervals
  not required – will check on the status of expenditures
  by other methods.
   Changes in the Assurances
 Adds requirements to:
  – Maintain and keep current data reflecting
    project activities in the BEESS Discretionary
    Projects Database.
  – As applicable to a project’s work scope, give
    priority to districts that have been targeted for
        Contact Information

 Cathy Bishop,
 Joyce Lubbers,
 Telephone – 850.245.0478
Budget and Grants
            Budget Review
 Be sure to review and follow the instructions
  on page two of the DOE 101.
 Budget should reflect the expenditures
  anticipated to support the activities/program
  described in the program narrative.
 Salaries and benefits should be reported on
  different lines because they are typically
  recorded using different object codes.
             Budget Review
 Column 3 should include:
 Account title of the object code and
  – A narrative description identifying the specific
    item; and
  – How it will benefit the program described in the
    program narrative.
            Budget Review
 Column 4 must be used to list the FTE for:
  – Every salaried position
  – Every Other Personal Service (OPS)

                 The instructions for the
                 DOE 101 include how to
                 calculate the FTE.
            Budget Review
 Column 5 is used to record the amount
  anticipated for each budgeted line item.
 If the narrative description includes
  amounts, their total should equal the amount
  reflected in this column.

 Districts = Negotiated Rate with FDOE
 Non public agencies, not for profits, ID
  cost is not allowable
  – Exception
            INDIRECT COST
 Public Universities, Colleges & Community
  Colleges up to 10%
  – Includes rent, utilities, support staff, staff not
    directly attributed to service delivery, costs that
    are not easily metered for cost sharing.

          Negotiation of the ID rate is in progress &
          not likely to exceed 10%
           Technical Review
 All applications should be sent directly to the
  Office of Grants Management (OGM).
 Reviewer checks for TAPS Number,
  appropriate signature on the DOE 100A or
  DOE 100B, items specified in the
  “Conditions for Acceptance” Section of the
           Technical Review

 The TAPS Number identifies:
  – Year of the application
  – Unit in GMS that manages that program
  – Specific program for which the application has
    been submitted
           Technical Review

 Failure to include the TAPS Number or
  using the incorrect TAPS Number could
  result in a delay in processing the
  application, or in the application being
          Technical Review
 The appropriate person must sign the DOE
  100 (A or B).
 For school districts, this is the

                     If a designee signs, please be
                     sure to include a letter from the
                     superintendent authorizing the
                     person to sign.
           Technical Review

 To help identify the original application, it is
  suggested that the signature be made using
  blue ink instead of black ink.
     Access to Grants Management
           Tracking System

   Public access to GMS is password free.
   Go To URL
   Select Application Status.
   Select your agency from drop down menu.
   Select year.
   Click on Search or use Enter Key.
Home Page
Application Status
Application Status
      Contact Information

Sue Wilkinson,
    Office of Grants Management
It’s time for……
Pls. turn to
Page 16 in
 Your PPT

               Welcome Back!

        It’s time for our
    BEESS’ Project Tracking
      System Update with
        Lezlie & Karen!
One more thing from

Regional PD Alliances
  and PDP Projects
  Comments from your FDLRS Lead
     Team re: PTS Entries…
 Noted several activities with no data entered.
 Be sure to update activities – even if it’s just a “not-initiated
  at this time” comment.
 Significant difference between entries – new grouping of
  PTS entries should help.
 Some entries have too much detail, while others have too
  little – summary statements are fine – aggregate your
 Fold follow-up activities in under initial activity/offering.
 Activity Descriptions of activities are helpful and vital.
 Consider assessing amount of deliverables included.
 Don’t include “technical comments” in updates – send them
  to MA.
Do you have any brain cells left to
        ask questions?
Have a good evening…we’ll see you
           at 8:30AM!
 Good Morning and
  Welcome Back
 FDLRS Managers!

 FDLRS Managers’ Meeting 
        April 28 ~ 29, 2009
          Orlando, FL
      We might have piled it
      on you yesterday……
But we knew you’d find a way to step up
and over those mounds of information
 and come back for more….and we’re
          sure glad you did!
   So accept
  your FDLRS’
    Smilin’                  Please read
    Donkey                    the story
   Award with                   first!!!
       Today it’s time for the…
          Project Priorities
           and Shop Talk
But first let’s get started with our super fantastic,
 able to leap tall priorities with a single bound,
    go-get-’em FDLRS Regional Contacts!!!
Project Priorities
                             Child Find
   FDLRS Child Find provides assistance in the location, identification,
   evaluation, and initiation of appropriate education or other needed services
   to all children and youth, birth through 21 years of age, who have or are at-
   risk of developing special or unique needs related to a disability. This
   includes children with disabilities who are homeless, are wards of the state,
   and children with disabilities attending private schools. The target population
   is children birth to five years of age and children and youth through age 21
   who are not enrolled in a public school. The 2009-2010 Child Find Priority
   Areas are:

 CF-1Provide developmental screenings to identify children birth to five years
  of age who are at-risk or may qualify for services related to exceptional
  student education. SPP Indicator 12

 CF-2Use of the Children’s Registry and Information System (CHRIS) to
  document screenings, referrals for evaluations, evaluation outcomes,
  placement decisions, and transition from the Early Steps program to pre-
  kindergarten programs for children with disabilities at age three. SPP
  Indicator 12
             Child Find Continued
 CF-3Support awareness of materials and provide/facilitate training
  opportunities related to child development and developmentally
  appropriate practices. SPP Indicator 12

 CF-4Locate nonpublic and private school children needing exceptional
  student education. SPP Indicator 12

 CF-5Support transition at age three and implementation of the
  statewide system to measure child outcomes through facilitating
  collaboration among school districts, the Early Steps program, the
  Technical Assistance and Training System (TATS) for Programs
  serving Pre-kindergarten Children with Disabilities, and other early
  education and care programs in the community. SPP Indicators 7, 12
                       Parent Services
   FDLRS assists districts and families who have children who are
   exceptional or have special or unique needs to develop effective
   partnerships that will allow for shared responsibility to improve education of
   all children and youth. The 2009-2010 Parent Services Priority Areas are:

 P-1 Support, coordinate, or provide information and technical assistance
  to schools and/or districts on best practices and strategies which assist
  schools in developing and implementing strategies to reach out to families
  and facilitate effective parent involvement in their child’s education.
  Examples of topics for consideration include, but are not limited to:
    –   Annual ESE Parent Survey, Effective Parent-Teacher Conferences
    –   Quality IEP Meetings and Progress Reporting to Parents
    –   Building Two-Way Meaningful Communication with Parents
    –   Creating Family Friendly Schools, Opening Doors
    –   Building Cultural Bridges, Outreach Strategies for Hard-to-Reach Parents,
        School-Wide Action Planning to Increase Parent Involvement, Active Parenting
        SPP Indicator 8

 P-2 Support, coordinate or provide information and technical assistance to
  parents on best practices and strategies which assist families to be
  effectively involved in their child’s education. SPP Indicator 8
    FDLRS plans collaboratively with exceptional student education
    departments/directors, staff development offices, curriculum departments, school-
    based administrators, and other professional development entities to provide
    information, professional development, technical assistance, consultation, and
    resources on research-based effective instructional practices/programs and models
    for the education of children and youth who are exceptional or have unique needs.
    HRD priorities are based on BEESS initiatives that are in alignment with the State
    Performance Plan (SPP), support the Florida Department of Education statewide
    activities including Just Read, Florida! efforts, and the Department’s Strategic
    Imperatives. Professional development activities are conducted in accordance with
    Florida’s Professional Development System Evaluation Protocol, BEESS priority
    areas, and locally assessed needs. The 2009-2010 HRD Priority Areas are:

   H-1 Utilize collaborative, data-based, needs assessment process to identify and align
    professional development activities in support of the State Performance Plan, Areas of
    Focus, Evaluation Protocol, K-12 Reform Efforts, Highly Qualified, Just Read, Florida! and
    statewide efforts in support of math/science initiatives, including but not limited to the
      – Collaborative planning meetings with Coordinating Councils, ESE Directors, Curriculum
         and Staff Development Offices, School Improvement Teams, Advisory Committees
      – Online needs assessment surveys
      – Planning with HRD Workgroups
      – Analysis of district data and impact of efforts on student achievement
      – Development of long range plan for planning, delivery, follow up and evaluation SPP
        Indicators: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14
                        HRD Continued
   H-2 Coordinate and provide multi-level, research-based professional
    development activities that are aligned with BEESS’ SPP indicators. Examples
    include, but not limited to the following:
     – Least Restrictive Environments/FAPE, Quality IEPs, Matrix, IDEA Implementation,
       ESE Policies and Procedures, Dropout Prevention, Disability Awareness, TBI, and
       other BEESS Initiatives
     – Areas of Emphasis, Just Read, Florida! Initiatives, Math and Science Content,
       Aspects of the Differentiated Accountability Model
     – Research-based instructional practices such as: SIM (Strategic Instruction Model),
       Instructional Strategies, Differentiated Instruction, Accommodations/ Modifications,
       Learning Styles, Algebraic Thinking, etc.
     – Assessment, Alternate Assessment, Next Generation Sunshine State Standards and
       Access Points
     – Classroom/Behavior Management, Social Skills
     – Transition (middle/secondary level)
     – Collaborative Teaching Model, Peer Coaching and Classroom Observation
       Strategies, Action Research, Professional Study Groups
     – SPP Indicators: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14
                         HRD Continued
   H-3 Provide relevant information, materials and other resources related to professional
    development, exemplary practices and FDLRS services that support the attainment of
    state/district goals related to ESE programs and services. Including, but not limited to the
      – Dissemination of ESE disability awareness information
      – Utilization of web-based communication tools to distribute follow up information to
         targeted professional development
      – Electronic newsletters, websites, chat rooms
      – SPP Indicators: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14

   H-4 Support development and implementation of statewide effective distance learning
    professional development activities including Professional Development Alternatives for
    Exceptional Student Educators (PDA-ESE), Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, and
    Elementary K-6 Online Content Review Modules, and delivery of local professional
    development using virtual technologies, including but not limited to the following:
     – Developing an annual calendar of PDA-ESE Offerings
     – Coordinating regional PDA-ESE offerings to ensure equitable access to modules
        across service region
     – Distributing awareness information on IC and K6 Programs
     – Developing local and regional professional development offerings utilizing virtual
     – SPP Indicators: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14
FDLRS plans and works collaboratively with school
districts, schools, and families to ensure that the
technology related services provided to students
with disabilities are effective and of high quality.
Activities may include technical assistance,
professional development, consultations,
resources and deliverables, and
collaboration/networking. The FDLRS Technology
function includes coordination at the state,
regional, and local level, as well as with other
BEESS Technology projects, to achieve a
seamless service delivery system.
            Technology Continued
FDLRS Regional Technology Specialists (RTS)
  FDLRS Regional Technology responsibilities focus on providing
  regional leadership to the FDLRS Centers’ technology function in order
  to assist in developing/maintaining highly qualified educators,
  technology specialists, local assistive technology specialists, regional
  assistive technology specialists, and other district/school personnel as
  they address the requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities
  Education Act with regard to the provision of assistive technology
  devices and services for students with disabilities, technology that
  supports learning (instructional technology & virtual technology),
  Universal Design for Learning, and accessible instructional materials.
  Coordination of services includes:

    – Working with the FDLRS Statewide Technology Coordinator to achieve a
      seamless service delivery system of statewide FDLRS Network activities
      and BEESS initiatives

    – Working with FDLRS Center Managers and Technology Specialists to
      achieve a seamless service delivery system of regional FDLRS Network
      activities and BEESS initiatives
          Regional Tech Priorities
   RT-1 Maintain/update the Assistive Technology Competencies
    website. SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5

   RT-2 Maintain/update local Satellite Labs. SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5

   RT-3 Coordinate NIMAS & AIM implementation/support. SPP
    Indicators 1,2,3,4,5

   RT-4 Coordinate content development for:
         FDLRS Technology web portal
         FDLRS Network technology competencies & presentation materials
         2009/2010 technology booklet and
         Statewide online courses/trainings on technology for students with
          disabilities. SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5
         Regional Tech Priorities
   RT-5 Follow-up activities for the 2008 FDLRS Institute and
    planning/participation for the 2009 Institute. SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5

   RT-6 Support and participate in hands-on technology labs and
    exhibits; including (if scheduled) FLCEC, FETC, ATIA, and Just
    Read! Florida. SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5

   RT-7 Attend required Network meetings: two Statewide Tech Team
    meetings (1 face to face, 1 virtual), Network conference calls,
    statewide FDLRS Institute (face to face), statewide technology
    function meeting (fact to face), two regional meetings (face to face),
    and two regional meetings (virtual). SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5
              FDLRS Associate Center Technology
FDLRS Center Technology responsibilities focus on
developing/maintaining highly qualified educators, technology
specialists, local assistive technology specialists, regional
assistive technology specialists, and other district/school
personnel as they address the requirements in the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act with regard to the provision of
assistive technology devices and services for students with
disabilities, technology that supports learning (instructional
technology & virtual technology), Universal Design for
Learning, and accessible instructional materials.

Coordination of services includes:
– Working with the FDLRS Statewide Technology Coordinator and
  Regional Technology Specialists to achieve a seamless service
  delivery system of FDLRS Network activities and BEESS initiatives

– Working with the FDLRS Center Manager and other FDLRS Center
  staff to achieve a seamless service delivery system of local activities
                  FAC Tech Priorities
   T-1 Provide professional development & support in the areas of assistive
    technology, instructional/virtual technology, UDL, NIMAS and AIM,
    including follow-up activities for the 2008 FDLRS Institute. SPP Indicators

   T-2 Collaborate in content development for:
          FDLRS Technology web portal
          FDLRS Network technology competencies & presentation materials
          2009/2010 technology booklet
          Statewide online course on technology for students with disabilities
           SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5

   T-3 As available, support and participate in hands-on technology labs and
    exhibits; including (if scheduled) FLCEC, FETC, ATIA, and Just Read,
    Florida! SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5

   T-4 Attend required Network meetings: statewide FDLRS Institute (face to
    face), statewide technology function meeting (fact to face), two regional
    meetings (face to face), and two regional meetings (virtual).
    SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5
FDLRS 2009-2010 RFA
       Budget Considerations
 IDEA remaining the same.
 GR dollars are reflected at current amount –
  anticipate further reduction.
 FDLRS Administration - providing additional
  resources for development of PDA-ESE
  Science and Math and extend offering of
  PDA-ESE language/communication module
  for SLPs.
 Make sure superintendent signs cover sheet
  (including double sheets if additional TAPS
  RFA – General Requirements
 Grants Management Contact – Margaret
 Added more explicit language on indirect for
  both colleges and school districts.
 School district language straight from Green
 Final disbursement reports:
  – Original to Comptroller
  – Copy to Josh Rew
    RFA General Requirements
 Out-of-State Travel – non-project staff
  – Projects may not support out-of-state travel for
    school district staff.
  – Exceptions – presenting with project staff at
    conference or on behalf of project or when
    approved by project liaison.
          RFA Requirements
 Out-of-State Travel – Project staff:
  – Must be described in budget narrative.
  – Restricted to maintaining up-to-date knowledge
    connected to the professional development
    provided by project.      – or –
  – Related to participation in a national meeting
    sponsored or co-sponsored by OSEP or its
    affiliated TA networks.
  RFA – Narrative Expectations
 Project Abstract – brief and to the point.
 Baseline data:
  – Quantitative – SPP indicator data, LEA profiles,
    targeted districts, student performance data,
    graduation rates, survey results, etc.
  – Quantitative – based on prior project activities
  – Qualitative – informal needs assessments,
    focus groups, etc.
    RFA Narrative Expectations
 Established need – based on what you see in the
  data, identify needs
 Scope of work – embedded in the Project
  Performance Accountability (PPA) forms
 Description of alternate methods for
  training/meetings – describe alternate methods
  used to reduce travel; estimate the number of
  events using such alternate methods; estimate
  number of events requiring out-of-district travel
   RFA Narrative Expectations
 State Performance Plan – how will project
  activities address SPP indicators
 Evaluation Plan
 Areas of Focus – reflects link to Next
  Generation Strategic Plan
 Describe support for Just Read and
  Math/Science initiative
 Dissemination/Marketing
    RFA Narrative Expectations
 Status updates upon discretion of project
 Project Reporting – must use PTS; may
  enter data on activities anytime; must enter
  data at least quarterly; failure to enter data
  may jeopardize future funding.
          RFA - Submission
 Send in ONE original to Grants
 Send electronically to Josh and Cathy.
 Font size smaller than 12 may be used for
 General Assurances
  – Project will give priority to districts that are
    targeted on indicator(s) or in “needs assistance”
    upon the request of district.
  – For projects with Web sites:
     Project must maintain current and updated
      information on the site.
     When referencing products developed by other
      projects, link to that project rather than excerpt or
  Assurances – Select Projects
 Applicable to FDLRS.
 Will participate with Regional Personnel
  Development Alliance during the project
 Also applies to CARD, SEDNET, Problem-
  Solving/RtI, FIN, PDP, Project 10, TATS,
  RtI-TLC, ISRD, Accommodations and
          Assurances - FDLRS
 Cleaned up some of the language around
  preschool – was a bit contradictory.
 Updated link to 6A-1.099, Cooperative Projects
  and Activities.
 Deleted separate assurances related to Regional
  Technology – was redundant.
 Added reference in travel section to Regional
  Technology Specialists – must be able to travel
  within region and to statewide meetings and
  activities (now reads, all project staff, to include
  RTS will be allowed ….).
And now for the draft template which
will make your lives a little easier .

                          Well, maybe not
                             this easy
                          …who are they
Let’s take a look at our 2009-2010

  Center Operating Procedures
           FDLRS Updated
     Center Operating Procedures
 Updated Background Information
 CC Meetings from 6 to 4 with only two having to
  utilize a face-to-face format. Virtual methods OK
  for other 2 meetings.
 Updated Project Priorities
 Tweaked Funding Section
 Tweaked Reporting Section
 Tweaked Assurances
 Other Changes…..
Targeted Topics
Ask for Corey Beerman
Don’t forget to capitalize on
the various strengths of our
 fellow FDLRS’ gardeners!!!
Successful Gardening Tips from
FDLRS’ with Green Thumbs 
 As you go forth….filled
    with the knowledge
needed to cultivate your
 local FDLRS’ Gardens
  for 2009-2010…let us
    keep in mind a few
     helpful tips…
Selecting the Seeds
   •What type of ―seeds‖ will do well in
   this climate?
   •Which ―seeds‖ compliment the
   other flowers ―growing in our
   •Will there be sufficient ―gardeners‖
   to tend to the ―seeds‖ as they
   •Will the effort that goes into
   ―sowing the seeds‖ be worth the
Planting in Fertile Soil

     •Is the environment ―rich enough‖
     to sustain the growth of the
     •Will there be sufficient
     ―motivation‖ for the seeds to want
     to grow?
     •Will there be ―sunlight‖ from
     above to foster the growth of the
Nurturing the Roots/Seedlings

        •What support system will be
        established to ―tend to the
        seedlings‖ as they grow?
        •Who will be on the ―gardening
        •Will there be appropriate ―tools‖ to
        support the seedlings as they
      Harvesting the
•What will be the plan for
―gathering the harvest‖?
•Where will the flowers of data be
•How will we spread the word
about our successful ―growing
•What will we need to do to
ensure a successful ―season‖
again next year?
What’s the secret to the success of
      your FDLRS’ garden?
For additional “gardening” tips …..
    don’t forget to contact your
       FDLRS Lead Team
  Cathy Bishop ~
Marilyn Hibbard ~
  Kathy Burton ~
      David Davis ~
 Mary Ann Ahearn ~
 Thanks for coming and for all
 you do for our FDLRS Network
    and the districts of Florida!
May 2009-2010 find you planting
     the seeds of excellence,
 leadership and commitment to
    ensuring student success
     throughout your service
  region. May your gardens be
     plentiful and your weeds
  few…and may every ―mound‖
 that comes your way be easily
    stepped over with a smile!

     You’re the Best!!!

Shared By: